Why John McCain is Lying: Fact and Narrative in the Presidential Race
September 13, 2008
This week NPR reported that many major news organizations have independently looked into Sarah Palin’s “bridge to nowhere” story and found it wanting. She was for it before she was against it and never said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the money. In fact, she has a record of acquiring earmarks for her town and state. Remarkably, however, she continues to repeat the bridge story to crowds of voters, who reward her efforts with rapturous cheers. Apparently the truth is irrelevant. The McCain campaign has even made so bold as to mischaracterize findings of FactCheck, which is both a complement to and a dig at this nonpartisan site that thinks facts matter. The Washington Post also covered untruth’s growing currency in a piece called “As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They’re Undone.” In it they covered this and other instances of truth-stretching, and they even caught the Obama campaign out on a couple examples, though nothing so bold as the McCain campaign offers. (I can hear the McCain campaign laughing now: “Wimps! Who cares if ‘The View’ notices? Facts are for sissies and elitists.”)
Apparently narratives are more important than facts. Or rather, the truths in narratives matter more than the actual facts in them. This kind of thing is normal enough for fiction and poetry, but it is strange to see in a political campaign, a realm that I once thought had to adhere at least somewhat to fact and the rules of good non-fiction. But apparently a new ethos is in place in the McCain campaign. It is the one Bertolt Brecht advocated in “Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties” (Pariser Tageblatt, Dec. 12, 1934, in: Brecht, Galileo, trans. Eric Bentley, Grove Press, 133-50). Brecht used the term “truth” loosely. For him it was about the supposed correctness of the communist vision of the world. It was a “weapon” to be used against capitalism, which he believed was the same whether in a fascist state or a liberal democracy. There were huge objective differences between these two systems, but that did not matter to Brecht. For him “truth” lay in the content of his preferred ideology, and it was his job to propagate these ideas. “The truth must be spoken with a view to the results it will produce in the sphere of action.” What he did not want were “no results, or the wrong ones” (137). “Cunning is necessary to spread the truth” (149).
Brecht’s truth was not about facts, and neither is John McCain’s. A good friend of mine who supports McCain expressed a related thought in a comment on another post, where I wrote that I was “less interested in tracking the horse race and more interested in the truth” (#12) “Come on and let’s be honest,” he wrote. “The supposed ‘TRUTH’ about Governor Palin is not going to change your vote one iota” (#13). Or as someone else pointed out to me, people crave narratives, not facts (hat tip). Facts by themselves have little meaning. Historians like me have to give meaning to the facts we find. But we keep that meaning rooted in reality, as I also did in a detailed piece on Palin. The McCain campaign has felt no such compunction, since it is striving to create a new semantic reality instead of using words to describe one that actually exists.
Psychologist and neuroscientist Drew Westen recognizes the importance of narrative in his observations about the challenge Palin presents to Obama: “Whether her performance tonight [in her ABC interview] maintains or diminishes her ticket’s standing in the polls will depend entirely on whether the Obama campaign decides to tell a story about her, rather than challenging isolated statements, and relate it to the last 8 years.” Obama and Biden have been telling a coherent story, but apparently the “more of the same” mantra is not compelling enough. The new story needs to flesh out the problems with McCain himself, as well as those with his choice of running mate. Obama took a step in this direction with his new internet ad, “The McCain Gamble,” whose title highlights the gap between McCain’s rhetoric and his record. The ad suggests which way the game is tilted.
Entry Filed under: 2008 presidential race, narrative, politics (domestic). Tags: ads, Barack Obama, Bertolt Brecht, bridge to nowhere, campaign 2008, earmarks, John McCain, lies, narrative, Sarah Palin, truth.
11 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

1. DrowseyMonkey | September 13, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Is it me or were the ladies on the view harder on him than the main stream media, lol.
Oh dear.
The more I watch your election process and our here in Canada…the more I worry about people, the media and the never ending spin machine.
2. Mark Stoneman | September 13, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I still need to actually watch it. So far I’ve just read about it.
By the way, the McCain campaign’s emphasis on biography over issues is also relevant for this post.
3. jan4insight | September 14, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Isn’t interesting how there have been more and more efforts at revealing the truth behind political claims, and more of them are coming out just this week? (I actually predicted this would be appearing, in my blog’s latest CycleCast.)
I am encouraged that some of these truth- tellings are coming out in semi-mainstream venues, like the Washington Post and the View, and I’m hoping there will be more. (Of course, the Repub’s call any media they disagree with “liberal” but in my view, true liberal media is not the Washington Post.)
One last thought: as I’ve said before, running a campaign based on lies, distortions, and smears is nothing new for the Republicans. Their history in these disgusting tactics goes way back to Nixon, or beyond.
4. Mark Stoneman | September 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Well here’s an interesting narrative development. The Obama campaign is now attacking McCain on his preferred narrative territory: Honor. Funny thing is, we now also have even Karl Rove saying that McCain has gone “too far” with his fabrications. Making it a point of honor could be a smart move against McCain-Palin, who have no shame whatsoever.
5. Bryan | September 16, 2008 at 9:25 am
Mark:
First – I think you may find I was probably the FIRST Republican blogger to point out the Sara Palin flip-flop. Anyone who knows anything about the “bridge to nowhere” knows there was a lot of support for it before the Alaskan legislature and Palin turned on Stevens and Murkowski. In the end – I think Palin played it brilliantly… she kept the earmark… and didn’t build the bridge.
Second – I find it ironic that all of a sudden Democrats seem to care about facts and truth. No one seemed to care when your candidate was making statements about “tax cuts” for the middle class. No one seemed to care when he was talking about the “crazy old uncle” racist… Rev. Wright. No one seemed to care about his affiliations with known criminals – Rezko, Ayers, etc.
But now it’s facts and truth huh… :) Unfortunately for you Democrats, Sarah Palin seems to be protected in many ways by the same bubble that protects Obama… public’s decided they like her… and they don’t really care too much what the facts are unless they dramatically alter the narrative. Bottom line with Palin was – bridge didn’t get built.. that was her action that made it happen.
… this is something I’ve blogged about several times… and it comes down to the axiom of the movie Who Shot Liberty Valance… when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. Works for your candidate as the “humble community organizer” who is allegedly ready to bring hope and change and a better tommorrow (viz. Carter politics…) and Sarah Palin – the hottie hockey mom who stopped the bridge to nowhere and now is set to be the Vice President of the United States.
Payback’s a bitch ain’t it?
6. Mark Stoneman | September 16, 2008 at 10:19 am
My compliments to your effort here, Bryan. Nice way to spin this into a new narrative about the Democrats.
Maybe we should fact check, despite the premium you place on legends? (1) Dunno what you’re talking about with taxes, unless “middle class” in your book means people with a personal income over $250,000 per annum. McCain’s misrepresentations on this score are well documented. (2) Obama has spoken openly about his relationship to Wright, and I blogged about the general issue earlier this year. (3) Rezko? I think FactCheck cleared that up. Ayers? Guilt by association for something that an adult did when Obama was a kid living somewhere else, and their paths didn’t cross till a couple decades later? Politico covered this story pretty well.
And tell me, even if you believed any of this stuff, which maybe you do, how does that make McCain’s smear campaign “payback”? Not a single one of those things involves a personal attack on or misrepresentation of McCain.
Still, nice effort. Right in line with Karl Rove’s statement yesterday about “both” campaign’s going “too far”. Obama’s attack on McCain’s honor makes more sense though.
Finally, kudos on the bridge call, even though your back-stepping with the spin on it near the end of your comment is disappointing. Still, for readers who don’t know you, I should point out that there’s a reason why you’re in my blog roll. Your stuff is often independently minded, though frustratingly consistent with the party line too. Can’t fault you for that though.
7. Anok | September 16, 2008 at 10:48 am
Bryan, I appreciate your ability to call foul for your own party, but I’m confused about your Obama references. Who says Dems didn’t care about tax cuts for the middle class? I think the tax cut policy issue is a huge factor in Obama’s campaign – and they are facts.
Dems, and others as well debated the validity of Rev Wright and such relentlessly when that smear campaign came out, and still pushed for a debate on facts, policies and issues, and asked others to refrain from misinformed, false and libelous character attacks. (Of which many have still yet to stop).
Dems have been asking McCain to outline his policies and platforms now for months, and now that Palin is on the ticket the Dems have asked for more facts about her, her relationship to McCain (professional) and what the ticket means for the country.
Dems have been screaming for facts, but the McCain camp (and sadly, even McCain) has consistently succumbed to the kind of mudslinging and sidestepping of actual facts that is unprecedented in recent elections.
So I am confused here…
8. techfun | September 16, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think the shiny is starting to rub off Sarah Palin.
An article I read yesterday – but cannot find – was dead on when it said that the best thing Obama supporters can do it just accept that many people LIKE Sarah Palin and there is nothing wrong with that. There is no reason to try to portray Sarah Palin as a bad person or someone that people should not like.
(I have trouble saying Democrats instead of Obama supporters because I like to acknowledge the many life long Republicans I know who are supporting Obama this year.)
Instead the focus MUST be on her qualifications and McCain’s lack of judgment in selecting her. As long as people are put in a position of feeling like they need to defend their gut reaction to liking and relating to Sarah Palin’s public persona the campaigns are in a holding pattern.
It’s fine to like someone and still think they are not the best person for a job, and the Obama camp needs to embrace that and move on to campaigning against the head of the GOP ticket.
9. Mark Stoneman | September 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Nice distinction between “Democrats” and “Obama supporters.” I had to remind myself of that recently.
I think the Obama campaign agrees with your last suggestion. Besides the “Gamble” ad I posted here, there is also the “Honor” ad I linked in my previous comment.
10. Six Versions of John McCa&hellip | October 26, 2008 at 12:29 am
[...] 26, 2008 One theme of John McCain’s campaign has been that narrative trumps fact. Another has been the campaign’s inability to think strategically. All I have seen is [...]
11. Rumours, Lies, and Smears&hellip | October 30, 2008 at 11:39 pm
[...] to the two political fact-checking sites, FactCheck and PolitiFact. Facts might not drive the all-important narratives of this campaign, but they’re still [...]